Did Citizen's United Make A Difference?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because that retaliation might take the form of boycotts, and therfore mean real loss of dollars and not just some high-minded constitutional gobbeldygook?

Boycotts are not the kind of retaliation that have been deemed to have an unconstitutional chilling effect on First Amendment rights.

And if you think this is "high-minded constitutional gobbeldygook" you might want to reconsider discussing the effects of a Supreme Court case that tested the constitutionality of portions of a law.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My assumption never was that advertisers are prohibited from making any false claims;

That is not consistent with the run-on sentence question in your post 50:

That's true, but while we're on the subject of false advertising, why is it that advertisers (corporations, say) are prohibited from making false claims about commercial products, yet are protected by the First Amendment from being prohibited from making false claims about a political candidate?

Again, advertisers are not prohibited from making false claims about their products. There is no such limitation to their speech rights. There are some types of false claims they can't make--generally, you can't use deception to take people's money because it's fraud. The fraud approach has been attempted with little success in suits against candidate campaign ads. (See again the fine article on FactCheck.org.) And you can't libel another person or company by making false claims about their products that causes them to suffer damages. (Actually that means you can make these claims in the sense that Congress won't stop you--but you will be held responsible for them if you cause damages.)

 

[magellan]

Boycotts are not the kind of retaliation that have been deemed to have an unconstitutional chilling effect on First Amendment rights.

And if you think this is "high-minded constitutional gobbeldygook" you might want to reconsider discussing the effects of a Supreme Court case that tested the constitutionality of portions of a law.

I apologize for unwarranted snark.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I apologize for unwarranted snark.

I think I may have misunderstood you anyway.

I think maybe you were saying that avoiding boycotts and that sort of fallout is the real reason they're opposing the Disclose Act but they're only hiding it in arguments of the chilling effect on free speech. That might be true, but I did ask for arguments for opposing it rather than their motivation. It looks to me like that argument (i.e. retaliation causing chilling effect) won't pass muster in court.

[ETA: Again, the court has only to look at the enthusiasm with which non-anonymous donors have funded political campaigns in the past.]

And as for motivation for blocking it, it seems that lately just the fact that a bill is sponsored by Democrats is enough.

 

[Dymanic]

You keep talking about the specific case of large for-profit corporations overwhelming broadcast TV spots with paid advertisements. And yet that's only part of what the law was about, only part of what the decision affects, and nothing of what the case before the court was about.

I do indeed place my main focus on the "specific case" (if you insist) of large for-profit corporations overwhelming prime broadcast TV spots with paid advertisements, because the evidence indicates that those TV spots (in combination with the constant droning of infotainmentganda appearing under the guise of "News") is where spendingspeech has its most significant impact on public perception of the issues -- AND because I do not desire to live under a sytem which features the sort of "unholy alliance" between big business and government that existed during, say, the 1890s.

As to your last point, I notice that was not an obstacle to you dedicating your very next sentence to the matter of the hypothetical banning of books, even though the case before the court had nothing to do with books. This may be the weakest part of your entire argument. I mean, you won't get a third of the way through the oral arguments before it should become obvious that the court is not limiting its considerations to the case before the court, but is taking into account a much broader range of considerations and implications. They tend to do that. It being the Supreme Court and all.

Her basic argument is that people wouldn't do that, but that's simply not good enough. Kagan is wrong.

Actually, I saw her argument resting more heavily on this: "there would be quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply 441b in that context."

The law grants the power to censor books. "likely" doesn't matter: either that's constitutionally prohibited, or it's not.

You continue to display a rigidity in thinking that is going to make it hard for you to wrap your head around this stuff. What is and what is not Constitutional is almost never as black and white as you suggest. It's a lot of the reason that such an institution as the Supreme Court exists. Speaking of black and white, you ever heard of Dred Scott?

 

[Dymanic]

That is not consistent with the run-on sentence question in your post 50:

Hey you know not every really long sentence is a run-on sentence that term correctly applies to a sentence in which two or more independent clauses which would be better expressed as separate sentences are joined together without proper punctuation or conjunction this makes such a sentence difficult to parse that was a perfectly good sentence it really wasn't even all that long just because you don't like some of the things I have to say doesn't mean you get to try to rip me on grammar and syntax why don't you just focus on countering my arguments instead.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hey you know not every really long sentence is a run-on sentence that term correctly applies to a sentence in which two or more independent clauses which would be better expressed as separate sentences are joined together without proper punctuation or conjunction this makes such a sentence difficult to parse that was a perfectly good sentence it really wasn't even all that long just because you don't like some of the things I have to say doesn't mean you get to try to rip me on grammar and syntax why don't you just focus on countering my arguments instead.

My apologies. I misread that leaving out the "but" in my mind.

However, I have not been trying to rip you on grammar at the cost of countering your arguments.

 

[Dymanic]

However, I have not been trying to rip you on grammar at the cost of countering your arguments.

I know. I just thought it needed to be a little longer in order to achieve the full comic effect. (Or should that be "comedic"?)

 

[Dymanic]

And as for motivation for blocking it, it seems that lately just the fact that a bill is sponsored by Democrats is enough.

Boom!

 

[respect]

Shall we take a look at the numbers of people in the US who reject evolutionary theory in favor of the notion that the universe was created around six thousand years ago? Who believe in Bigfoot, or UFOs, or ESP? Is it not a central premise of the skeptical community as a whole that many of the beliefs embraced by so many without evidence are not merely silly, but potentially dangerous?

And skeptics seek to challenge unsupportable and incorrect claims with logic, reason and evidence, not censorship like you advocate. I think damn near every skeptic would agree that a government that can ban people from discussing bigfoot is far more dangerous than someone believing in bigfoot.

 

[Dymanic]

And skeptics seek to challenge unsupportable and incorrect claims with logic, reason and evidence, not censorship like you advocate. I think damn near every skeptic would agree that a government that can ban people from discussing bigfoot is far more dangerous than someone believing in bigfoot.

Yeah, but they're biased. I mean, what would skeptics do without stupid ideas to rip to shreds? Take up knitting?

Your argument is a stawman. No one advocates a ban on discussion. The CU ruling is about spending (or, as I've decided to call it: "spendingspeech").

 

[Ziggurat]

I do indeed place my main focus on the "specific case" (if you insist) of large for-profit corporations overwhelming prime broadcast TV spots with paid advertisements, because the evidence indicates that those TV spots (in combination with the constant droning of infotainmentganda appearing under the guise of "News") is where spendingspeech has its most significant impact on public perception of the issues -- AND because I do not desire to live under a sytem which features the sort of "unholy alliance" between big business and government that existed during, say, the 1890s.

I don't care where your focus is, the law covers much more than that. And so those other things MUST be considered when determining the constitutionality of the law. Your refusal to do so is damning to your argument.

As to your last point, I notice that was not an obstacle to you dedicating your very next sentence to the matter of the hypothetical banning of books, even though the case before the court had nothing to do with books. This may be the weakest part of your entire argument. I mean, you won't get a third of the way through the oral arguments before it should become obvious that the court is not limiting its considerations to the case before the court, but is taking into account a much broader range of considerations and implications. They tend to do that. It being the Supreme Court and all.

I know that. You, however, don't. You continually ignore such broader implications. But it's worse than that: you even ignore the narrow implications of the case before the court. The court will sometimes render very narrow judgments that have little effect beyond the specific case that they're considering. But what the court never does is render a judgment that doesn't address the case before the court. You, however, are doing exactly that.

Actually, I saw her argument resting more heavily on this: "there would be quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply 441b in that context."

In a sense, I agree: it's the same challenge that faces non-book speech. Kagen never actually explains why a book is different than other forms of speech, and without such an argument, her position has no basis.

You continue to display a rigidity in thinking that is going to make it hard for you to wrap your head around this stuff.

I have displayed far more flexibility in my thinking than you have. And the evidence for that is that I can actually consider the facts of the case as well as broader implications to different forms of speech and different speakers, whereas you cannot get beyond considering a specific kind of speaker and a specific kind of speech, and continually form your arguments in direct contradiction to the actual case before the court. When the facts contradict you time and time again, you're doing something wrong.

 

[respect]

Yeah, but they're biased. I mean, what would skeptics do without stupid ideas to rip to shreds? Take up knitting?

Your argument is a stawman. No one advocates a ban on discussion. The CU ruling is about spending (or, as I've decided to call it: "spendingspeech").

You missed the point entirely, appealing to skeptics vs. woo isn't going to help you, skeptics don't seek to silence woo and superstitions, they seek to defeat it with superior arguments.

And if you really want to pretend that you don't want to silence people, you just don't want to them to be able to spend money to spread their views, you won't find many skeptics who think that goofy ghost hunting television shows should be backdoor-banned by outlawing money to be spent broadcasting them, skeptics would rather just explain why the shows are goofy and should not be taken seriously.

As many here have been trying to explain to you, censorship is not the way to combat bad ideas, more speech explaining why they are bad ideas and proposing good ideas is the way to do it.

 

[Dymanic]

I have displayed far more flexibility in my thinking than you have.

Yet we have this glaring false dichotomy:

either that's constitutionally prohibited, or it's not.

I'm sorry, but I find it ironic to the point of absurdity that a person who would make such a statement would then presume to lecture others on the nuances of what must be considered when determining the constitutionality of a law.

 

[Dymanic]

You missed the point entirely, appealing to skeptics vs. woo isn't going to help you, skeptics don't seek to silence woo and superstitions, they seek to defeat it with superior arguments.

And if you really want to pretend that you don't want to silence people, you just don't want to them to be able to spend money to spread their views, you won't find many skeptics who think that goofy ghost hunting television shows should be backdoor-banned by outlawing money to be spent broadcasting them, skeptics would rather just explain why the shows are goofy and should not be taken seriously.

As many here have been trying to explain to you, censorship is not the way to combat bad ideas, more speech explaining why they are bad ideas and proposing good ideas is the way to do it.

You seem to have a penchant for words like "banning", "censorship", and "silencing". The CU ruling is about spending.

 

[casebro]

I've got no problems with corporations or groups contributing like the rest of us 'legal entitys'. Same limitations to apply.

 

[Dymanic]

I've got no problems with corporations or groups contributing like the rest of us 'legal entitys'. Same limitations to apply.

How about foreign owned legal entities? You think they should be able to spend as much as they want toward influencing the outcome of US elections?

 

[respect]

You seem to have a penchant for words like "banning", "censorship", and "silencing". The CU ruling is about spending.

Are you trying to convince the rest of us or yourself that your promotion of censorship is justified?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet we have this glaring false dichotomy:

The normal method used to demonstrate that something is a false dichotomy is to present a third option (or more) not included within the dichotomy. Proof by counter-example, if you will. It's a very simple argument to make.

Strangely, you haven't even attempted to do so.

 

[Dymanic]

The normal method used to demonstrate that something is a false dichotomy is to present a third option (or more) not included within the dichotomy. Proof by counter-example, if you will. It's a very simple argument to make.

Strangely, you haven't even attempted to do so.

So you dispute that it is a false dichotomy? It really is correct to regard constitutional versus unconstitutional as a simple matter of black and white?